MBTA Construction Projects

Re: T construction news

Indeed. I asked the project manager for the BC station to please take a look at Chestnut Hill (pictured above) and Chiswick Rd (similar) just to see what the state of the "B" line was. He told me that he has now arranged to walk the right-of-way with the manager of the Green Line to assess the state of those stations. So we'll see what happens. If they do happen upon $20 million, I really wish they'd use it to upgrade those stations (or maybe consolidate!).
 
Re: T construction news

I have to admit, there are benefits to the asphalt strip school of station design- I know the fences are there for safety, but it is nice to be able to enter the platform area from anywhere on the street. (Of course, I usually use Sutherland Rd., which is at least somewhat decently wide)
 
Re: T construction news

The asphalt strips on the hill are definitely unsafe. It's money well spent to rework them for a little more breathing room and fences. Central/East were just baffling because the amenities were pretty much no different than what was there before. Just nicer-looking with the raised platform. I can't even conceive what drove those costs up so high. It's not that much different from Harvard Ave., which got done on-time and within budget.

The first thing I thought of when looking at those BC renderings is "Kenmore bus shelter". Bad things happen budget- and climate control-wise when they start getting a little too precious with those shelter designs.
 
Re: T construction news

F-line: you're not alone. One of the first commenters at the meeting said: "Oh no, not another Kenmore bus station!"

The PM said: "we'd like to think we have learned our lesson on that one."
 
Re: T construction news

The point is, an agency that has so little money should be focusing on function and much less on form.
 
Re: T construction news

massmotorist said:
Why does this cost $20 million?

bcstationprelimdesign1-thumb-520x345-83859.jpg
Click to expand...

Aside from the astronomically unbelievable pricetag, why the hell does it look like they want to fence off the island platform on one side? Typically a terminal station fitted with both island and side platforms will function in a way where trains that turn around immediately will utilize the side platform to unload and the island to load. The other track only accessible by the island platform would be used for trains entering service from the rail yard.

Certainly it would take more time to cross Comm Ave, traverse the loop, and cross Comm Ave again just to pick passengers up. With a side/island set up, the conductors simply switch ends goes. I hope that (along with the woefully inadequate covered 'shelter') is artistic license in the rendering and not actual operational foreshadowing.
 
Re: T construction news

The stated reason they have settled on this design is because they want people to board on the right side of the train so that they can use the farebox there. Under normal operation, a turning train will crossover from the outbound tracks to the inbound platform (the one with the cover). The passengers will alight onto the inbound platform and then the operator will change ends. Then the waiting passengers will be allowed to board through the front of the vehicle.

If a train is being taken out of service then it will not crossover and the passengers will alight on the smaller outbound platform.

Trains will, hypothetically, only enter the yard when being taken out of service.
 
Re: T construction news

Ah, so it will function somewhat similarly to what I thought. I still don't get why they wouldn't want to leave the island open for both sides, since passengers disembarking on the left would avoid confusion/people hopping on board without paying. As it is in their design, passenger loading/unloading occurs on the same platform. At a terminal station (especially with the operator changes, etc.) it's better to segregate the two movements.
 
Re: T construction news

Oh, the other stated goal is to block pedestrian movements and force them to the crosswalks on either end of the station.

You know... "safety"
 
Re: T construction news

Another question - why the hell are there mini-high platforms here? Isn't the whole reason we're switching out the old Green Line cars for low floors to avoid this?
 
Re: T construction news

They claim it is a temporary measure "until the delivery of the Type 9 trains."

Admittedly, I am starting to wonder about their logic. The T has committed to running 2 car trains with a mix of Type 7 and Type 8. So the mini-high would only be needed for the occasional case of a Type 7 going solo. Then, this new station may not be completed by the time the Type 9s roll around. And surely a few small improvements to the existing station could make it fully ADA compliant with them too.

They also want to get passengers away from the yard, but honestly, I think they're getting a little silly. It's been how many decades/centuries with the current station, and no problems really? One woman said she has memories of the BC station dating back to 1946 when she was little, and even as a child she never remembered any problems accessing it.
 
Re: T construction news

Any chance this is to allow the line to be extended in the future?
 
Re: T construction news

BostonObserver said:
Any chance this is to allow the line to be extended in the future?
Click to expand...

Extending the B-line? Ahahaha... Perhaps when they can cut down the ride time in half then it would be worthwhile thing to even think.
 
Re: T construction news

ant8904 said:
Extending the B-line? Ahahaha... Perhaps when they can cut down the ride time in half then it would be worthwhile thing to even think.
Click to expand...

I could imagine them extending the C Line or branching off the D Line via Chestnut Hill Ave and BC Station would work better than actually extending the B Line.

Although, what's the need? I can't imagine anything beyond College Rd being worth it, so perhaps just a one station extension could be worth it, in which case, no burden for the B Line.
 
Re: T construction news

BostonUrbEx said:
I could imagine them extending the C Line or branching off the D Line via Chestnut Hill Ave and BC Station would work better than actually extending the B Line.

Although, what's the need? I can't imagine anything beyond College Rd being worth it, so perhaps just a one station extension could be worth it, in which case, no burden for the B Line.
Click to expand...

If MassHighway ever does the Comm. Ave. rebuild between Packards and Warren the B would be relocated to an ultra-wide center median. Though not on any plans I've seen (caveat: it's a MassHighway project, so T probably has not gotten its two cents in yet) it's a GOLDEN opportunity to install a Blandford-style pocket track between Harvard Ave. and Griggs allowing short-turns on the inner half of the line where the crush load is worst.

If they do that they can bulk up the headways to BC with some extended runs off the C and just leave the hill as a lighter-headway gap (justifiable if it makes the GL as a whole run better and carry more passengers). The extended BC runs I don't know if they'd consider that because they've pretty much lost the art of alt routings and short turns over the last 20 years, but it would shut the school up about BU bogarting their headways. At any rate the B so very badly need a turnback in Lower Allston to keep the works from choking to death.

I don't think the D via Reservoir is currently a good candidate for serving BC. The inbound ridership from there would tilt much more heavily to Brookline and esp. Coolidge Corner than it would an express route. I could see that being useful though if they ever do E-to-D connecting trackage at Brookline Vill. because E-to-BV + D-to-Reservoir/Cleveland Cir. + Chestnut Hill Ave.-to-BC would be a wholly unique full-size branch hitting appropriate density and offering a little something destination-wise for everyone en route.
 
Re: T construction news

F-Line to Dudley said:
If MassHighway ever does the Comm. Ave. rebuild between Packards and Warren the B would be relocated to an ultra-wide center median. Though not on any plans I've seen (caveat: it's a MassHighway project, so T probably has not gotten its two cents in yet) it's a GOLDEN opportunity to install a Blandford-style pocket track between Harvard Ave. and Griggs allowing short-turns on the inner half of the line where the crush load is worst.
Click to expand...

Is the reconfiguring of this section of Comm. Ave. actually in the works? Or is it just one of those things that everyone agrees would be a great idea but there are no plans to actually do it?
 
Re: T construction news

MBTAddict said:
Is the reconfiguring of this section of Comm. Ave. actually in the works? Or is it just one of those things that everyone agrees would be a great idea but there are no plans to actually do it?
Click to expand...

Phase I, BU Bridge to Packards, has final design. That's just a continuation of the Kenmore-BU Bridge makeover with the lane-drop, curb juts, and streetscaping. Phase II, Packards-Warren, is in prelim design. That blows up the entire batshit 2 express + 2 local roadways setup and reorganizes everything into a Beacon St. Brookline setup with unified EB and WB carriageways, angled parking, and a wide leafy center median with the B relocated onto it.

Both have been put on ice by the budget crunch and it makes no sense to do Phase II until you've got traffic calming out to Packards Corner. So who knows when. But yes, this is real and one of the Top 5 most wanted city thoroughfare makeovers on the books. Immediate benefit for the T is that Harvard Ave. will get nice wide platforms instead of the current one so stuffed people have to hang off the railings while waiting for the train.
 
Re: T construction news

davem said:
The T could cut me a check for $100,000 and myself and my three friends could design and build it in two months. Its fucking a few dump trucks of concrete.
Click to expand...

You should bid on the project. You'll save the state A TON of money. Of course, keeping concrete in a dump truck will be difficult, but I'm sure you've got that figured out.
 
Re: T construction news

I'm unclear on why the concrete needs to be fucked, and why it needs to be fucked in a dump truck. To keep costs down?
 
Re: T construction news

Maybe you could charge people money to fuck the concrete and then that money goes towards building the new station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top